FoI for WB7 peer review.

[GIThruster]

icarus, anyone familiar with what an NDA is, or how business gets done, knows that possession of information is not license to disseminate that information however one chooses.

No-one has said anything like this, it would be released by the Navy under duress of FoI request, if you hadn't been following.

So Navy and EMC2 have a separate NDA, or some such set-up, is your rationalisation of why EMC2 can claim "proprietary" over the Navy's peer review report. In this case, I would scale my accusation back to merely deceptive from dishonest.

Is the existence of an NDA subject to FoI upon the Navy I wonder?

You're bonkers. "NDA" is nothing like dishonest. It just means shrimps like you don't get to titilate the way they wish.

Go find a nice video game.

[Aero]

Some good information on NDAs is available here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreement
I don't want to post it all but its not to long to read. The exclusions part of NDAs seems to be generally overlooked in this argument over redacting data from the report in order to answer the FOIA request:

Typically, the restrictions on the disclosure or use of the confidential data will be invalid if

* the recipient had prior knowledge of the materials;
* the recipient gained subsequent knowledge of the materials from another source;
* the materials are generally available to the public; or
* the materials are subject to a subpoena. In any case, a subpoena would more likely than not override a contract of any sort;

Read the 4th item again. It says "a subpoena would more likely than not override" ... your NDA.

We all seem to be forgetting that Dr. Bussard spilled most of the polywell data up through WB-6 with posted reports and his Google talk. That data cannot be proprietary by item three above. So really, the only proper proprietary data EMC2 can claim (relative to the FOIA request) is that data developed during the performance of the WB-7 contract. It boggles the mind to imagine that the report prepared for peer review did not contain one scrap of background data discovered or created prior to the WB-7 contract. That scrap of background data is not proprietary because Dr. Bussard already disclosed it. It should have been provided by the navy (in a properly redacted report) in response to the FOIA request.

[icarus]

You're bonkers. "NDA" is nothing like dishonest. It just means shrimps like you don't get to titilate the way they wish.

Go find a nice video game.

I'll take your childish outburst as an admission that you are wrong and don't wish to discuss it any further.

I'll summarise for anybody else in case your mind has been affected by git-thruster.

Read again what I wrote (and re-read if necessary) I said the opposite of what you inferred. A NDA would maybe give EMC2 grounds to claim that the report belonging to the Navy was "proprietary" to itself, i.e. this would then NOT be a dishonest claim. However, it is then deceitful that the NDA hadn't been revealed at that time to explain how it can possibly have proprietary ownership over material prepared by a govt. body.

[Aero]

The report can only contain proprietary data, it cannot be proprietary, common usage not withstanding. The NDA, which I stipulate was probably written into the contract, addresses data, not documents. Therefore the peer review report cannot be proprietary and such a claim is false on the face of it. The report can, however, contain proprietary data. As argued in other posts above, it must also contain non-proprietary data. For example, EMC2's address must be on the title page and cannot be proprietary. (agreed, that datum is not very useful to anyone, but it serves to prove the falseness of the claim that "it is all proprietary." ) Further, we know that Dr. Bussard did his best to share data about polywell during the funding hiatus. The data which he disclosed cannot be proprietary either. If it were possible to convert publicly available data into proprietary data, well wouldn't that create a messy chain of ownership, no matter how strong your claim. Some of this data must have been in the report as background data. BUT, it is not necessary to know that, because the simple fact that the addresses are required in the report is enough to prove the lie to the claim that the report is all proprietary. Who's quote is it, "Evil is evil, no matter how small." Well, so are falsehoods.

[chrismb]

I've got an idea. . .how about Chris and i, and Aero and icarus and Kiteman and anyone else interested, all find something worthwhile to argue over? We're not gonna find much about the Poly to argue, but this country is going to have a new human spaceflight program in a few years and no one knows what it will look like. How about, if we're gonna burn the brain oil, we use it for something useful?

If you don't believe arguing is its own reward, then you don't belong on most topics here!

[KitemanSA]

Are you saying that it is a no-no for any government to buy anything from any business?

Not at all.

And if not, what is government NOT allowed to buy because it constitutes "state support for private business"?

Personally I think this is very and blantantly clear. I say: A Government is NOT allowed to enter into any contract on different commercial terms to that which any other commercial purchaser would expect or demand.

Great, then you have no problems with EMC2 cuz they used a fairly standard reasearch contract as far as I can tell.

Such terms are likely to include rights of shareholders to access information to assess whether their company is doing the right thing and what shape the business is in. For the gov, the public are the shareholders.

Ridiculous. Any company that allows ANOTHER companies shareholders to view their own proprietary data is not long for this world. The shareholders in question ALWAYS hire what they hope are honest intermediaries who, thru some type of legal or contractual basis, are required to respect the proprietary nature of such data. Said honest intermediaries (the Navy CORs and COTRs in this case) review such research results and make decisions for the shareholders.

If the work required is so secret, or is so important that it cannot be allowed to fail, then it should be clearly and distinctly owned by the Government.

Non-sequitur. Neither applies to this case.

To do anything else is 'un-captialistic', and we know where un-captialism takes us....

IBID

Now, it is true that commercial contracts can be set up such that, at some reduced rate, the contractors are permitted to keep IPR as their own. But I have never heard of a contract where the owners of the company issuing requests for quotes ALSO SAY that they will not allow their shareholders to know what the work results are. That would be an unfair contract term, in respect of the shareholders' rights, because there has been a long history of problems where companies keep their affairs secret from shareholders, with many criminal convictions resulting and new laws to create yet more criminal offences in that regard.

By this I now see that you just aren't grasping the size and complexity of modern corporations or the FEDGOV. Northrup Grumman Shipbuilding is one part of the Northrup Grumman Corporation. And even it keeps proprietary information FROM ITSELF!!! NGSB(NN) (Newport News) is a separate division (or maybe subdivision) from NGSB(GC) (Gulf Cost) and as such they bid against each other for contracts using seperate proprietary processes and data. Indeed, they may be REQUIRED TO by law in order to maintain "competition" in the shipbuilding industry. There are similar dynamics that operate in ALL large entities, including the FEDGOV and the Navy itself.

[KitemanSA]

Oh, and by the way Aero, please look at the passage by chrismb that I quoted in my first message on this topic. That was what I was responding to, not the lead in to the thread as a whole. But perhaps you can't distinguish that finely?

I have no problem distinguishing your objective here KitemanSA, which is to subvert this thread away

Oh my, have you heard any "black helicopters" recently? Maybe I am coming to ray-gun your mental processes. Be sure to wear your tin-foil beanie!

from the root QUESTION, which is:

Let's make something quite plain - the peer review on the <=WB7 work that lead to funding for WB8 was an independent work of EMC2 and paid for by the Navy. The peer review is owned by the Navy. If it is not owned by the Navy, then it wasn't an independent peer review!

The answers which you so wish to avoid are:

• Yes, it is owned by the Navy, or
  No, it is owned by EMC2.

Or any number of other responses you appear unable to distinguish in your limited black or white world. Two options of many:

• * Owned by the Navy but containing "proprietary information"
  * Owned by EMC2 but selected, conducted, and managed by the Navy.

If it is owned by the navy, then the navy owes a validly redacted copy of the report in reply to the FOIA request. That is the law of the land.

Well, perhaps if that had been the SOLE request of the FOIA, ladajo would have gotten it. But my recollection of his request was for ALL RESULTS, and with such a broad sweep request, the limit to the number of hours that a company is required to spend makes a unversal "no, its proprietary" response a valid response. As you say, its the law of the land.

If it is owned by EMC2, then we and the citizens of the USA have been swindled via the Navy and the WB-8 contract.

That is your opinion, not fact, and doesn't reflect my opinion and I am a citizen of the United States. I am glad the Navy is wiser than you in this matter.

Why are you so afraid to address this question KitemanSA, one would think you are on a payroll somewhere. Do you work for big oil and are trying to keep the information of successes contained for your employer's nefarious purposes? Address the question KitemanSA, quit your efforts to redirect this thread. Just stop it. Try to behave like an adult and I will also. Now, Address The QUESTION.

I addressed chrismb's statement cuz he got something specifically wrong. Your "question" was infantile blather that I prefered to ignore. Well, you got your wish. I have addressed your "question". Please quit blathering.

Oh, by the way, of course I am on a payroll somewhere. I am not an indigent, nor a medicant. I work for a living as an engineer (technically, a Naval Architect, but who's counting?). I myself have "hard developed knowledge and skills" and I would no more give them away than EMC2 is likely to. Indeed, I am now starting a process to turn some of my knowledge and skills into patented products. I intend to use the converse of the R&D contract that EMC2 has in order to get the development and marketing done without government expense, even though the government will be party to the patent.

[ltgbrown]

Wow there is a lot of frustration over the lack of data/information!

[Aero]

Wow there is a lot of frustration over the lack of data/information!

You got that right.

[KitemanSA]

Folks,
Just by way of a reminder, the FOIA request included a LOT more that just the review by the 'expert panel'. Per ladajo's prior post:

This letter is in response to your January 07, 2010, request for a copy of test reports and information regarding NAVAIR Solicitation #N68936-09-R-0044 Polywell Research. Specifically current project status as well as previous contracts: research analysis, development, and testing to validate the basic physics of the AGEE concept under contracts: N0014-93-C-0224, N0014-96-C-0039, N68936-09-P-0029, N68936-09-P0095,
N68936-09-P-0133, N68936-03-C-0031. Test, research and reporting documents and presentations for WB-6, WB-7, and WB7.1 to include peer review submission packages and review results. Your request has been processed in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C § 552.

These guys are required to comply if compliance can be done within a certain amount of time. IMHO, the amount of info requested had two viable responses:

• * Sure, here, have it all.
  * No, its proprietary.

Any other response would entail EMC2 selecting some small part of the request and doing a redaction of that small part. That would not have answered the mail. Personally, I think EMC2 chose the wiser of the two viable responses.

So, any further discussion of EMC2 being "evil" or "nefarious" because they did not reply to a non-existant FOIA Request should be dropped.

[KitemanSA]

We all seem to be forgetting that Dr. Bussard spilled most of the polywell data up through WB-6 with posted reports and his Google talk. That data cannot be proprietary by item three above.

REALLY? Do you have the data from any legal source? I'd love to see it! I didn't see any data in any of his talks. He discussed general results occasionally. And to the degree that he did, THAT data cannot thereafter be claimed to be "proprietarty". But I don't recall much be way of hard data at all (which is why folks wanted the FOIA).

So really, the only proper proprietary data EMC2 can claim (relative to the FOIA request) is that data developed during the performance of the WB-7 contract.

Nope. All the WB6 data that exists but was NOT revealed is still proprietary. And if it was revealed, why are you so intent on having them reveal it again? Just go back to the revealing publication and there you go!

It boggles the mind to imagine that the report prepared for peer review did not contain one scrap of background data discovered or created prior to the WB-7 contract.

It probably did. But so what?

That scrap of background data is not proprietary because Dr. Bussard already disclosed it.

Where? Exactly where. Point to it, publication, page, and paragraph. (Minute in a recorded talk will also do.)

It should have been provided by the navy (in a properly redacted report) in response to the FOIA request.

See my other post. There was no FOIA for that document by itself, more's the pity. I had suggested that ladajo target the FOIA MUCH more narrowly so it had a more than a snowball's chance in hell of netting any useful data. But no, he went "all or nothing" and got nothing. Too bad.

[KitemanSA]

gitthruster:

The Navy owns the report.

Okay. So how can EMC2 claim that the report is, in its entirety, "proprietary"?

Surely that is being dishonest, at best disingenuous or deceitful?

How do you internally rationalise that?

I must have missed something. Where did EMC2 EVER claim that that report in its entirety was proprietry? Ladajo basically asked for ALL of EMC2's data on everything. They wisely, IMHO, said, "nope, its proprietary".

Lets get real. They are not required to go thru each and every report and redact each and every page unless ladajo agrees to pay a goodly amount of money (what was it, $7 per page or something?). Nor are they required to guess what some snoopy uninvolved third party thinks was the REAL document desired and redact that. Please, use you brain.

[KitemanSA]

Who owns the Navy peer review report of the EMC2 WB-7 contract?
a) the Navy
b) EMC2
are the two most likely answers, in fact, it is obviously the Navy but lets first find some common ground we can agree on and we can go from there.

From the few postings I recall at the time, it was EMC2 that arranged and paid for the "expert panel". Thus, it was probably their report. But I could be wrong on this.

[KitemanSA]

Is the existence of an NDA subject to FoI upon the Navy I wonder?

Look at the contract. Read it. It is public record (with redactions). Maybe you will learn something.

[KitemanSA]

Read again what I wrote (and re-read if necessary) I said the opposite of what you inferred. A NDA would maybe give EMC2 grounds to claim that the report belonging to the Navy was "proprietary" to itself, i.e. this would then NOT be a dishonest claim. However, it is then deceitful that the NDA hadn't been revealed at that time to explain how it can possibly have proprietary ownership over

What in the world are you blathering about? Between a commercial entity and a government entity, all the commecial entity needs to say is that their data is proprietary and the government must treat it as such. No NDA is required. New contractors often try to get them signed by government agents but there is no need.

...material prepared by a govt. body.

What material generated by what government agent?